The Not So Good: Simplifications reduce
strategic variety, heavily scripted campaign missions with no randomized maps
and no diplomacy, assorted interface shortcomings, no multiplayer (yet), no
skirmish games (yet)

What say you? A space real-time strategy
game with streamlined mechanics for easier command but decreased depth: 4/8UPDATE (8/4/12): Skirmish mode has been added.

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

Space serves as fertile ground for strategy gaming. The
ability to colonize new worlds and produce ships that fight in a 3-D
environment has captured the imagination of computer gamers everywhere,
spawning both real-time and turn-based strategy titles too numerous to mention
(although naming them would make my review significantly longer). The next
entry in this long line of heralded gameplay is Gemini Wars, a real-time
adaptation where you command ships and bases, conduct research, and invade colonies
in several star systems connected by wormholes. Does Gemini Wars provide
unique, compelling real-time strategy?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND

I was occasionally impressed by the graphics of Gemini Wars.
Space is a fertile ground for nice graphics, and Gemini Wars is no exception.
First, planets and bases rotate, which breathes live into the empty static of
space. Ships and buildings also have nice textures when viewed up close,
although the black palette obscures some of the detail. Weapon and shield
effects are repetitive but generally effective, as you can clearly see shots
deflected and damage taken. The ship destruction animation is better than most
games, where you can actually see 3-D pieces of the ship float away. Building
construction is also animated, although it occurs in stages rather than a fully
progressive visual. Gemini Wars also has very pretty backgrounds to serve as a
backdrop for the action. The sound design is more typical, with appropriate
battle effects and voice acting of varying quality, but usually at least
average. Event voice notifications are misleading: every ship is a "capital ship" and the game never says whether it's a friendly "capital ship" or an enemy "capital ship" that has been destroyed. The music fits the genre but is nothing special in a genre that
usually offers up dramatic scores. Effort has been made to make Gemini Wars
look decent in a setting that essentially requires notable graphics, so that is
to be commended.

ET AL.

The story of Gemini Wars unfolds across a sixteen-mission
single-player campaign. The objectives are varied, with defend and escort
missions, elevating the campaign above a simple collection of skirmish maps (a
popular choice in strategy games), although the objectives are also quite linear and leave little room for varied strategy. Each mission lasts a while, usually between
thirty minutes and one hour, so it can take some time to finish the campaign.
Of course, some of the time is spent simply waiting, for a countdown timer or
watching lengthy battles resolve, with no user input, so the time investment could have been reduced. Mission objectives could have also been more clear: you are told what to do but not where to do it, as objective location indicators are never used on the map (occasionally mission objectives name the location of interest, but not always). Missions are accompanied by fairly extensive CGI
exposition and mission briefings, for people that enjoy that sort of thing.
They are frequent enough to interrupt mission flow, but because of the heavily
scripted nature of mission structure, this amount of disturbance is required. This obviously reduces replay value, and the release version does not include
skirmish games or multiplayer, although they are planned for release in the
future.

Missions in Gemini Wars can involve multiple maps that are
linked by wormholes, and the maps also feature lots of planets and asteroids to
capture and build upon, although the enemy starts in specific areas and behaves
predictably during a single mission. In terms of difficulty, some missions are
too hard, and some missions are too easy, and all have significant waiting at
some point that I alluded to earlier. Missions last a bit too long, a
combination of a slow game pace, overwhelming enemies, and arbitrary mission
requirements (like defending for an entire hour for no discernable reason, or constructing exactly ten ships (even though you need many more to defeat the sizable enemy navy)). One
reason why I don't like solo campaigns in strategy games is because it's so
hard to get the difficulty just right: one extra enemy ship can mean the difference
between success and failure, balance and imbalance. Gemini Wars introduces new
actions gradually during the campaign (which confusingly disables major
gameplay mechanics for a majority of the campaign, like colonization) and in
two tutorials; the tutorials provide decent information (although keyboard
commands are not explained) but have voiced instructions you can’t quickly skip
through.

The interface for Gemini Wars is pretty typical for the
genre, with no truly innovative features and some areas that could use
significant improvement. The “strategic map” button allows for instant access
to a zoomed-out perspective. The game is played on a 2-D surface, which makes
it easy to navigate; while 3-D space is obviously more realistic, I’ve found
that using it in games like Sword
of the Stars is ultimately more confusing. There are several places
that could use some work: there is no idle ship button, or a way to box-select
(or not box-select) construction ships (you can de-select them from a
selection, but that adds an extra step). Military bases and shipyards do not
have rally points where newly constructed vessels can be sent automatically.
Units always default to close attack, for some reason, even though ranged
attack is always the better option (especially for units with missiles, and
assault units will close in automatically anyway). When multiple units are selected, the icons in the bottom left of the screen never show specific health or shield information, only turning red when a unit is near death and displaying numerical hyperspace fuel levels. Those icons really need pop-up tool-tips, as I don't have the ship icons memorized and constantly forget which shape is a battleship and which is a cruiser. Unit health bars also disappear when you are zoomed out at a usable
level. You also can't reconfigure the controls, the few that there are in the
game. The game tells you when a new unit is built, but not where (you can't
click on the notification to move the camera) or what it is (other than a tiny
little icon). In addition, there is a twenty-second difference between when a ship is finished and when you can select it, which is extremely annoying in the heat of battle. Issuing a move order to a unit several systems away does not use
the hyperspace drive. Placing build orders does not use resources immediately (that's good),
but the construction is canceled (instead of being put on hold) if the required resources are not available when the construction starts (that's bad). While you can queue ships, you cannot queue research.
Gemini Wars could also use a master ship list (though the strategic map view
allows you to see all of your units) and more detailed tool-tips (displaying
things like resource gathering rates). Strategy games, especially real-time
ones, require an efficient interface to play the game, and Gemini Wars needs
several improvements.

There is just one primary resource to worry about in Gemini
Wars: crystal. It’s used to build ships and construct buildings, and collected
by placing a single mining base on an asteroid field. Planets will also need to
be colonized, once a colony ship has successfully visited a neutral world.
Colonies provide marines for troop ships (so you can invade other colonies),
increase the unit cap, and enable the construction of massive large ships.
Military stations can also be placed in orbit around a friendly colony; these
allow for small ships to be constructed, in addition to other buildings, like
the shipyard (for buildings larger ships), turrets (of which there is no limit
on, curiously), shield generators, and long-range cannons. Gemini Wars
restricts you to placing one mining base, one military station, and one
shipyard in each location, which cuts down on spam but reduces tactical
flexibility. There is also a population cap, which is increased by founding new
colonies with military stations. The building variety in Gemini Wars is quite
limited: while a straightforward build order makes the game easier to learn,
I’d still like to see more options (like weapon or defensive attachments or completely
new structures) added to this portion of the game.

Like the building selection, ships in Gemini Wars are basic
and generic, but they cover all of the options present in your typical strategy
game. Military options include the missile frigate, assault frigate, destroyer,
cruiser, battleship, and carrier, while colony ships and troop ships are
provided for founding and attacking colonies. Battleships get one special
ability of your choice (like a devastating shot or shield recharge), unlike
other ships with static weaponry. However, because these special abilities take
so long to recharge (twenty real-time minutes, I’d say, on average), their use
is essentially meaningless. Gemini Wars does not allow you to design your own units
or add different weapons to the designs, but research is available to improve
different aspects of your ships across the board. Those aspects include the
hull, shields, speed, and weapon attributes (damage and range). In addition to
research, combat experience also increases a unit’s damage. An enemy ship can
be captured if the crew is eliminated, which is a nice twist not usually
offered in strategy games. As with the buildings, I would like to see more
varied ship types that take advantage of simple weapon countering methods (as
in Galactic
Civilizations).

In addition to typical slow movement around space, Gemini
Wars features localized jump movement between planets and asteroids using
hyperspace fuel. This works like nodal movement in Sword
of the Stars or Endless Space, but with more freedom in choosing your
specific destination. This movement method has several advantages: predictable
movement (you know the enemy will appear at planets or asteroids) makes setting
up defenses easier (and concentrates the action), and waiting for the jump
power to recharge forces both sides to stick around for a fight. It’s a nice
system that works well. Wormholes to different stars on the same map are
controlled by one side and not usable by the other until they destroy the enemy
warp gate, which is a neat way of cutting off a portion of the map and
isolating enemy units.

Units can be given orders beyond “move here”: rotate, stop,
attack, ranged attack, and defend (which keeps units in formation). You can't specify unit facing when issuing a move command by holding down the right-mouse button, and you must wait to define it after the destination is reached (the rotate command is confusing anyway). Units have
a hard time consistently staying at maximum range: the “ranged attack” option
keeps on switching off for me (defaulting to “attack”) frequently when units
are selected, which brings the missile units close enough to get shot by melee
adversaries. While units are smart enough to engage nearby enemies on their
own, their movement tactics leaves a lot to be desired. On larger ships,
subsystems (life support, weapons, engines) can be targeted, but I found this
method to be unreliable as well: too often, right-clicking on a specific
component would end up attacking the hull anyway and subsequently destroyed the
ship I wanted to disable and capture with shuttle-launched marines. You also cannot flank units and attack weaker side or rear shields, as in Starpoint Gemini. Gemini Wars
has a slow pace, with units moving slowly and weapons causing minor damage:
large battles can take a significant amount of time to resolve, and time
acceleration is not an option. The streamlined nature of the game
has some disadvantages, as fewer decisions make for duller games. Just choose
the biggest ships you can research and afford, establish the closest colonies
(when you are able), construct defenses, research improvements, and destroy. Gemini
Wars lacks the depth found in competing space strategy games, which makes the
game more approachable, but potentially too simple for veteran strategists.

It’s hard to gauge the quality of the AI in Gemini Wars,
since most (if not all) of the campaign missions are completely scripted, with
defined starting conditions and locations for your computerized opponents. The
AI will produce units and send them to where you are, but I’m not sure if these
tactics are thought of on the fly or scripted by the scenario designer in
advance. As I stated earlier, difficulty in the game can be erratic, and the AI
certainly does not play “fair”: it’s usually given many more units at the
beginning of a mission, and it’s up to the human player to outproduce the
computer from there on out. Until Gemini Wars gets the promised skirmish mode, it’s
difficult to tell just how intelligent the artificial intelligence may be. Rounding
out the package is research: you can unlock hulls and structures and improve
engines, armor, shields, and weapons for all of your units by constructing a
research station (one per planet) and spending the points they generate. All of
the research options are not available until the end of the campaign (you
usually get one new thing to discover per mission), however. Finally, Gemini
Wars does not have diplomacy of any kind, since the single-player campaign is story-driven.

IN CLOSING

The simplified nature of Gemini Wars is a two-edged sword:
it makes the game very approachable, but also limits the long-term strategic
variety. Limiting each base to only one major building of each type means
you’ll encounter the same basic design every time. In addition, only six
military ships means you’ll run into the same fleets over and over again.
Research options do expand the specific attributes of units you’ll see, but
continually using the same effective, simple plan that lacks the nuances of
other space strategy games reduces replay value. Gemini Wars has a nice
combination of real-time mechanics with 4X elements, like planet colonization
and movement between specific points. Like almost everything in the game, the
economy is simplified: just build a mining station near each asteroid field to
gather the game’s only resource. Each planets can be surrounded by one military
station, which allows for additional buildings like shipyards, turrets, and
research stations. Since you are limited in
the number of buildings you can construct at each base, you’ll have to colonize
new worlds to expand your influence. Shipyards produce six different types of
military units (plus construction and colonization craft), which may seem
disappointing but cover all of the options present in most real-time strategy
games. Unit attributes can be further customized through research, so there is
still some choice, albeit indirect, in building your military. During combat,
you can target specific subsystems of the larger vessels and capture enemy
ships that have a deceased crew. Gemini Wars lacks diplomacy, relying
instead on heavily scripted encounters during the sixteen-mission campaign, set
on fixed map layouts. The AI benefits from these scripted force allocations, and
difficulty can be inconsistent, but at least there is a mission variety beyond
a series of skirmish matches. The graphics look nice, but the interface has
several areas in need of enhancement. Still, Gemini Wars needs the inclusion of
skirmish games and online multiplayer to earn a full recommendation. $40 is a
little pricey for sixteen campaign scenarios (I would have preferred, say, $20
or $25 now with a $10 DLC for skirmish and multiplayer whenever they are
finished), but fans of streamlined real-time strategy games set in space could
take a gander at Gemini Wars.

The Not So Good: Too similar to Time
of Fury, basic diplomatic and research options, lacks alternative
scenarios, no multiplayer matchmaking

What say you? A smaller, more easily
controlled version of Time
of Fury fails to bring any other improvements: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

Six months ago, Time
of Fury was released, which sought to provide a comprehensive look at
World War II from a strategy gaming perspective. While the game did streamline
a number of wargame conventions, it was still unwieldy thanks to a large map
and lots of units to control. As if they listened to my feedback, developer
Wastelands Interactive have created Strategic War in Europe, enlarging the map
and subsequently decreasing the unit count by combining the military into corps
and armies. This $15 budget-level release hopes to continue to march towards
accessibility that started with Time
of Fury. Does Strategic War in Europe march on Berlin, or march on
Paris (you can decide which of those options is better)?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND

The simplification of Strategic War in Europe starts with
the graphics: a less flashy 2-D map with 2-D unit counters replace the 3-D
models from before. Honestly, I actually prefer the informative counters in Strategic
War in Europe to the 3-D models in Time
of Fury. In addition, the hand-drawn attack circles and destination
indicators look neat. The World War II unit portraits return, as does the
interface, which provides sortable unit lists and reports that make all of the
game’s information accessible, although not as efficiently as I would like. The
sound design is quite basic, with occasional battle effects and decent music to
accompany your attempts at world domination. Strategic War in Europe doesn’t
provide any groundbreaking innovations in terms of graphics and sound design
(and recycles a significant portion of Time
of Fury), which is what you would expect for $15.

ET AL.

Strategic War in Europe lets you take command of any of the
European (plus the United States) nations during the Second World War (also
known as The
War Between The States). The alliance that earns the most victory
points (earned by holding cities) is declared most awesome. The game comes with
six scenarios, giving you the starting conditions for each year between 1939
and 1944. Games are played with one turn representing one month, so the longest
game lasts a manageable seventy turns, which is a far cry from the 300-turn
behemoths of Time
of Fury). You can choose to control one or multiple countries (even
those from opposing sides) and allow the AI to take the helm of the remainder. Strategic
War in Europe lacks the alternative scenarios provided in the previous title,
which is a bit disappointing. Strategic War in Europe also lacks matchmaking or
centrally hosted multiplayer; I suppose that, with shorter games, the
developers figured players could handle play by e-mail on their own. Still, the
smaller map size (presented at a larger scale), reduced unit count, and shorter
game length makes Strategic War in Europe much more approachable than its predecessor.

Units in Strategic War in Europe consist of corps and armies
(instead of divisions and corps), which is appropriate for the increased scale
of the map. Like before, ground units include infantry, motorized, and armor
types, while fighters, tactical bombers, and strategic bombers take to the air,
and carrier group, battle group, patrol group, and submarine group rule the
seas. Each unit is rated according to strength, a health value that also
determines attack and defense, and the effectiveness, a combination of battle
experience, commander values, and supplies available. A selection of commanders
can be assigned to important units, which generally increases attributes
according to the rating of the commander. Supplies are automatically ferried
from nearby cities to your units, the amount of which is inversely proportional
to the distance from the city. While you don’t have to worry about managing
supplies directly, the system does allow you to control rail lines and cut off
supplies through flank movements.

Each unit has a number of action points (determined from the
type of unit) that it can use to move and attack each turn. In addition to
conventional movement, units can take advantage of strategic rail movement, sea
transport, amphibious invasions, and paradrops. Air units can rebase, scout,
and nuke targets, while naval vessels can raid supply convoys. Units can join
an attack once per turn, adding to the strength of the assault and allowing you
to take down powerful armies by surrounding them and simultaneously attacking
them. The victor of a battle is determined from the unit strengths, terrain,
and weather conditions. This system is intuitive while allowing for large-scale
tactics. I found the AI nations in Strategic War in Europe to be fairly
intelligent (artificially, of course), surrounding and attacking important units
it can beat, avoiding combat when appropriate, moving towards city objectives,
and attempting to keep units in supply. Units will get damaged, so you can spend
production points earned from cities under your control to reinforce existing
units (preserving the experience they have earned) or purchase new units that
can be placed near any city once completed. Existing units can also be upgraded
to a higher experience level or changed to a new type, if they are in friendly
territory and you have the production points to spend.

Diplomacy and research in Strategic War in Europe is very
basic. Diplomatic points can be spent delaying or hastening your country’s
entry into an alliance, triggering an election, or changing political parties.
You can also pressure other nations into a specific alliance, attempt to change
their political affiliation, or declare war. And that’s it: no trade or
dealings other than pure alliance. Research is even more primitive: you invest
money to increase the focus in six areas (infantry, tanks, aircraft,
submarines, navy, and nuclear weapons), allowing for more unit upgrades. Neither
of these areas get much focus during a game of Strategic War in Europe, so most
of your energy will be spend moving units and attacking your foes.

IN CLOSING

Not surprisingly, Strategic War in Europe is very, very
similar to Time
of Fury, except with less units on a larger-scale map. The bigger
unit sizes, represented as corps and armies, do make the game much more
manageable, and Strategic War in Europe is subsequently more approachable and
serves as a good introductory wargame. Units move, attack, and gain experience
over time, increasing their strength as the war progresses. Attacking from
multiple directions on a single unit is the best strategy, surrounding the
enemy as you march towards city objectives that contain the production points
necessary to recruit new units and repair old ones. The diplomacy and research
aspects of the game remain underdeveloped, and things will generally play out
as they did historically. Strategic War in Europe features the same decent
computer opponents as before, who play competently as they attack vulnerable
units and capture important objectives. The simplifications of Strategic War in
Europe have resulted in less scenario diversity, as the historical variations of the past are
mysteriously absent this time around. The longest scenario in Strategic
War in Europe is a fourth of the size of the largest offering in Time
of Fury, allowing you to actually finish a game in a reasonable
amount of time. While I do like Strategic War in Europe more than Time
of Fury because it is more manageable without sacrificing strategy, I
wish innovations were brought to the table along with the reduced size. The
smaller price helps to lessen the sting of Strategic War in Europe essentially
being a direct copy of Time
of Fury with more streamlined features, though. I think that if I was
overwhelmed by Time
of Fury and wanted a quicker, easier experience (as I do), then I
would take a look at Strategic War in Europe and its $15 strategic gameplay.

What say you? A peculiar tilt for the
off-road racing series retains several shortcomings: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

After the slow start of DiRT,
lofty heights of DiRT
2, and crash back down to Earth of DiRT
3, one wonders what it next for the venerable off-road racing series.
Will a new edition fix the issues of the last installment, namely the lack of
significant content and annoying mandatory racing modes? Well, we’ll have to
wait a bit to find out, as the DiRT has taken a detour towards exotic racing
events, such as figure eight races and demolition derby. This is certainly a
different approach from the more traditional races, like rally and pack events,
seen in previous DiRT titles. Does this diversity make for an intriguing game?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND

As expected, the graphic of DiRT Showdown are as good as
ever. The car models are detailed at every turn, with vibrant paint schemes and
decent damage. The circuits are set in distinctive environments with plenty of
trackside variety to distract as you try to drive. The game employs a lot of
fancy slowdown effects and lighting tricks to accompany your demolition
exploits (the fireworks budget for those tracks must be through the roof). The
sound design is fairly average, with appropriate engine sounds and alternative
background music. The announcer commentary gets annoying and repetitive very
quickly, and lacks the name recognition of past DiRT titles. You can choose a
nickname (no first names like in DiRT
2, again) that the game will call you when you sign on: I chose
“cupcake”. The power of the graphics results in a solid presentation capable of
comparing favorable with any racing game.

ET AL.

Like previous DiRT titles, DiRT Showdown primarily has you
progressing through a campaign to become the DiRTiEsT racecar driver around.
The “showdown tour” is divided into four tiers, where you must finish third or
better in all but one event (of your choosing) in each tier. This high level of
required competency is carried over from DiRT
3, and I still hate it. As is always the case, there were two events
I could not beat in the introductory campaign, so I was stuck for a significant
amount of time, replaying the same two races over and over and over again.
Forty-seven times. I’m not exaggerating: I counted. At three minutes per
attempt, that’s two and a half hours of playing the same two races I could not
defeat until I got lucky. That’s simply not fun. Assuming you finally beat a
campaign race, you can challenge your Steam friends to best your time, which is
a decent social feature. Apart from the campaign, there is the “joyride” mode,
which is somewhat innovative: you have a series of stunt missions to complete
(jump here, slide here) and packages to collect. While some of the objectives
are vague and I wish they would give you several at a time, I did like the idea
of the mode and it offered a nice break from the frustrating campaign.

One thing I immediately noticed when starting up the game
was…oh joy of joys: Games for Windows LIVE is missing! But, out with the old
and in with the new, as Codemasters’ Racenet service is used, and it honestly
has just as many connection issues as the previous online component: sometimes
it would connect immediately, sometimes it would take half a minute (during
which you can’t cancel and return to the main screen), sometimes it would say
the servers were down. So, obviously some improvements need to be made. Despite
the removal of Games for Windows LIVE, DiRT Showdown still uses the same
terrible method of joining games. The mode selection does not display how many
players are in each race type, so you have to potentially join and disconnect
from each of the five groupings as you manually search for opponents.
Seriously, how hard is it to place a number next to each game mode showing how
many people are playing it? Frankly, I’m fed up with a game that, in its forth
iteration, still has basic usability issues like server browsing and campaign
advancement. There is simply no excuse at this point. Rounding out the features
is two-player split screen mode, online Racenet events that offer specific
challenges (car, track, race type), and in-game YouTube uploads so you can show
your friends just how totally awesome that wreck was.

DiRT Showdown takes place in scenic destinations like Miami,
San Francisco, Japan, London, and…Michigan?! The game features a range of racing
modes revolving around annihilation. The first are variations on destruction derby,
either awarding points for big hits or taking place on a platform, where you
can push competitors off sumo wrestling style. Oddly, there is no penalty for
wrecking out (just points for whoever did it), which in actual destruction
derbies would disqualify you. The difficult “hard target” survival mode throws
lots of enemy cars at you and sets a target time you must achieve; the best
strategy seems to be driving in large circles, so the enemy cars slip past you.
The best game mode, in my opinion, is the figure eight (called “8 ball” for
some reason…to appeal to billiards fanatics?): cars are designed to cross paths
several times a lap. This mode retains the driving skill of the traditional
racing modes and adds in some elements of luck to keep you stressed out every
time you meet oncoming traffic. DiRT Showdown also includes more traditional
racing modes, like basic circuit events. The “domination” mode, where you earn
points by setting the fastest sector times, is completely out of place in this
game. The strategy seems to be alternating the sectors in which you use boost,
while completely avoiding any contact with opposing cars (which, you know,
takes away the whole point of the game). The “elimination” mode is more at home
here, since you can use crashes to your advantage when the last place car is
eliminated every fifteen seconds. Stunt modes return, much to my chagrin,
although the stunts seem to be easier to pull off this time around. And in the
head to head obstacle course stunt mode, it’s really easy to place third and
progress in the campaign because there are only two cars. Finally, there are
three multiplayer-only modes to enjoy (if you can find anyone to play against,
of course); capture the flag, hold the flag, and drive through six checkpoints
in any order. So, DiRT Showdown is not short on race modes, and a couple of
them are even fun.

DiRT Showdown controls as you would expect: an arcade racing
game. The game features mostly fictional cars adapted for high-collision
racing: buggies, trucks, buses, and old cars (there are also rally cars for the
stunt modes). There are noticeable differences between the cars, each rated
according to power, strength, and handling. Those ratings can be upgraded to an
extent with money earned from racing, and the game uses a letter system to
remind you which ones you’ve improved. You’ll have to switch between cars based
on the event type (high strength for destruction derbies, high power for races).
The physics are fine: while collisions are satisfying, I found that cars get
stuck a lot, probably because the AI keeps accelerating into me and other
racers. The speedometer from games past has been replaced by a health and boost
meter. Health is meaningless during races, as you’ll never do enough damage to
eliminate yourself or someone else from a race. It plays a larger role during destruction-based
events, but when you wreck out, you simply respawn seconds later. The boost is
more interesting, as it’s earned by running into other drivers. This gives you
more power to cause wrecks in destruction modes, and an incentive to crash cars
during races (especially if you are in the back). The AI is robotic: as a famous NASCAR
driver once said, if you ain’t first, you’re last. The cars travel in
a conga line, weaving between obstacles like a metallic serpent. Only the
occasional field-clearing wreck breaks the monotony (which is probably why I
like the figure eight races so much). The time between first place and sixth
place is usually half a second, which means you usually either win the race or
finish worse than third, requiring you to restart the race yet again. The AI
drivers certainly feel artificial, and more work could have been done to spread
out the pack and make the races more authentic.

IN CLOSING

DiRT Showdown has the same frustrating feature problems as
DiRT
3, but it’s buoyed somewhat by its take on crash-filled racing. The
crash-filled racing spectacles, though repetitive, are a nice change of pace.
The use of car health (which only becomes an issue during demolition derbies)
and boost changes the game from pure racing skill to a more tactical approach,
which is more appealing to a casual audience. My favorite is the figure eight,
with cars criss-crossing in the middle of the lap: it has the right combination
of luck and skill that makes for great arcade racing. The demolition modes also
take some skill with maneuvering, and the stunt-based modes are more forgiving
this time around. The traditional racing modes (especially the timed circuit
“domination” type) seem out of place amidst all of the wrecking, but can still
be enjoyable if the AI didn’t resort to close pack racing almost all of the
time. This style of close racing makes it exceedingly difficult to advance through
the campaign, which continues to have arbitrary constraints on your enjoyment:
once again, your progress is locked until you can finish third in all but one
of the missions at each difficulty level. Beyond the frustrating campaign is an
interesting objective-based joyride mode and challenges you can send to your
Steam friends that play DiRT Showdown. Multiplayer is much of the same,
despite the addition of Codemasters’ own Racenet servers, and the game still
does not show which modes other people are playing so you can join the most
populated servers. I like DiRT Showdown more than DiRT
3, certainly, but I wish the campaign modes, multiplayer, and
unnatural AI were fixed once and for all.

Games Workshop is
most famously known for the Warhammer series of tabletop wargames, which have
been licensed into several
successful computer games. The board game design company is also
responsible for Blood Bowl, a strategic American football-inspired game based
in the Warhammer universe, which was also adapted into a computer game in 2009
(which I played but did not review). Branching off of that game is Dungeonbowl,
which takes the turn-based/real-time sports action and adds treasure chests
that may contain the ball (or a trap) and teleporters, with a single touchdown
winning the game. The much quicker matches should result in wider appeal, so
does Dungeonbowl speed up the game while preserving the strategic depth?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND

The graphics of Dungeonbowl are essentially identical to
Blood Bowl, which is not surprising. The games take place in dark dungeons that
recycle the same elements over and over again: dark stone walls, fire, violent
decorations, and caged dancing nymphs (for some reason). Different maps are not
distinctive visually, but vary only according to the specific layout. The
character models cover a wide range of races, but you usually can’t tell the
difference from the far distance you’ll typically be playing from. The units
could have more detailed models and less jerky animations. The battle effects
are repetitive, with simple “falling over” animations when players get hurt:
none look painful enough. The interface is a hindrance: there is no list of
players on the main screen, displaying helpful information like who has moved.
It’s also very hard to tell who is on which team, as the red and blue
backgrounds are too vague; I routinely moved the camera to obscure the
characters, so I could view them through a wall and see the bright outline for
team identification. You can cycle through players using the page up and page
down keys, but there is nothing on the GUI that lets you perform that action.
There is also no prompt to remind you to teleport a new player into the game
each turn; I had to condition myself to call in reserves first thing. In addition,
the minimap is too small to be usable, with tiny dots showing the locations of
players and chests. The sound design is very basic, with sporadic effects for
in-game events. The occasionally humorous announcers from Blood Bowl have been
completely removed, and the music is generic for a fantasy setting. Clearly,
Dungeonbowl uses the same graphics and sound as Blood Bowl, with some features
taken out and the interface not improved.

ET AL.

Dungeonbowl is Blood Bowl with sudden death (the first score
wins), teleporters, and the ball hidden in one of six chests. The game features
twelve dungeon layouts that offer good strategic variety; all contain narrow
hallways (for easier blocking) and pits that opposing players can be pushed in
to. The editor also allows you to create you own maps, which can be shared
online once approved by the developer. Dungeonbowl provides online matchmaking,
LAN play, and hotseat modes, but no single player. It is very surprising that
you cannot practice against the AI, especially since there was an offline mode
in Blood Bowl that could be farmed for player experience. The hotseat mode
doesn’t even let you play with your online teams, restricting you to three
templates for each school in the game. As it stands, you are at the mercy of
the online population to play Dungeonbowl: sometimes finding an opponent takes
seconds, sometimes it takes minutes, and sometimes it takes much longer.
Dungeonbowl also lacks a tutorial, relying on a manual. Interestingly, there
are actually sound files in the game directory for a tutorial, probably copies
over from Blood Bowl but not used here. I am greatly disappointed by the lack
of single player content in Dungeonbowl.

The first step in dominating the dungeons of Dungeonbowl is
to create your team. Each team has between eleven and sixteen and can take its
player from one of the three colleges of magic featured in Dungeonbowl (Light,
Bright, and Rainbow). Of course, the board game features ten different schools,
so I suspect some future DLC is in order. You can supplement your team with an
apothecary (to decrease injury severity) or bribes (so the referees ignore
fouls). Each college has access to three races that essentially change the base
stats of your players (plus some visual differences): dwarfs, orcs, goblins,
high elves, norse, trolls, minotaurs, skaven, undead, and humans. The ratings
used in the game are movement, strength, agility, and armor. These players must
be bought (to prevent you from choosing all high-level players initially) and
divided into different roles that basically boil down to throwing, catching,
running, blocking, or all-around. Each player also has a number of different
skills based on their position, such as tackle, block, dodge, thick skill,
strong arm, strip ball, sure hands, and diving catch. New skills are added each
time a player levels up, as experience is earned by the best players in each
match. This adds a nice sense of attachment with your team (just like any good
sports management game) as you watch your players grow over time.

Dungeonbowl is sudden death: first score wins. The
turn-based game allows one team to make all of their moves during a two-minute
window, and then control passes to the opponent. Players must be moved in
succession (you must complete all the moves of a single player at one time),
and your turn ends immediately if you get tackled or lose possession of the
ball. The ball must be brought to your opponent’s spawn zone, and it is hidden
in one of six chests scattered around the map. If you open a chest and it does
not contain the ball, the player blows up and your turn ends. This is the first
or many interjections of luck into the game that significantly impact the
gameplay. The second is the teleported: there are six placed in the dungeon,
and you end up at a randomly chosen destination. There is also a 1:6 chance of
the player being completely removed from the game, so teleporter usage is not
without hazard. The random nature of the teleporters makes it really difficult
to keep your team together, and it leads to a lot of luck: you might end up
right near the ballcarrier, or on the opposite side of the map, or out of the
game. I like some element of randomness in strategy games to keep things
unpredictable, but too much luck negates good tactics.

Each team starts with six players in their zone, but an
additional player can be brought in each turn, appearing randomly at one of the
teleporters. Players can be injured when tackled, and you can also block
players into the lava/water/openings next to the pathways, although I found the
actual number of instances of this happening during games to be quite low. Each
player can move a number of squares according to their stats, and dice rolls
can be used to move two additional squares. If you move by an opponent, an
automatic dice roll is made to see if they tackle you (again, based on stats).
This means you should position defenders so that the enemy ballcarrier (and
other players) must move past you on the way to the goal; this is a large part
of the strategy in Dungeonbowl (and, by proxy, Blood Bowl), partially negated
by the use of teleporters. When players are attacked, dice are rolled to
determine the outcome: the attacker can get hurt, the defender can get hurt, both
could get hurt, or the defender might be pushed. Pushing someone into lava or a
teleporter is an intriguing tactic. Additional options that require dice rolls
include picking up the ball, passing the ball (and catching it), blitzing
(which is a move then an attack), and fouling someone who is knocked down. There
is a lot of luck in this game, much more so than regular Blood Bowl. For
example, my ballcarrier was sent to a teleporter (because the direct path was
blocked by enemies) and was killed (a 1/6 chance). The very next turn, the
enemy spawned a reinforcement at the very same teleporter (another 1/6 chance),
picked up the ball, and carried it into my goal. With that much luck in a
strategy game, I think most purists will be turned off by how much chance may
influence their tactics.

IN CLOSING

Dungeonbowl is a simplified, quicker version of Blood Bowl,
and the random teleporters, traps, obstacles, and sudden death scoring result
in a more hectic game. Some might not like this amount of unpredictability,
however, as the teleporters send your players to a random location (or vaporize
them completely) and five out of six of the ball-holding chests will explode in
your face and end the turn. As a result, Dungeonbowl games are chaotic and
unorganized, with team members spread around the expansive maps, and since a
single score means victory, a single mistake (or bad roll) can cost the entire
game. The teleporters make it exceedingly difficult to organize a plan, which
may be the point. Luck also plays a large part in the game, beyond the
randomness associated with attack roles: where will the teleporter send you?
The best strategy with all of this instability seems to be to keep defensive
players near your end zone and to move conventionally most of the time (unless
the ball carrier is far away and the risk is worth it). The turn-based
mechanics means you’ll have to wait for the opponent to complete their turn,
but the two-minute limit keeps things moving quickly. I might suggest
alternating control after every player, but that might result in an even more
chaotic game. The basics of the gameplay remain intact, and the narrow passageways
means blocking is even easier: just stick people in the middle of the hallway
and the opponent is required to roll to dodge past them. The team customization
options are typical, although only having three of the ten schools in
Dungeonbowl leads me to believe the developer is purposely withholding content
for a future date. The biggest disappointment is the lack of a single player
mode (I guess the AI from Blood Bowl could not be taught the new rules) and
removal of a tutorial. With no single player and no tutorial, I had to learn
the game by playing with myself (not that I don't enjoy playing with myself).
The interface could also use some additional work, as it was too difficult
identifying teams and finding players. While Dungeonbowl is a unique version of
the Blood Bowl system, the lack of single player content and high amount of
randomness negatively impacts the game’s appeal.

What say you? The
fantastic real-time 4X series continues with a standalone expansion
that doesn’t offer enough for veterans of the series:

I own previous Sins games: 4/8

I’ve never played Sins before:
7/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

In 2008, a monumental game was released
that combined real-time strategy and 4X conventions. It was called:
Dora
the Explorer: Lost and Found Adventure. No, wait, it was Sins
of a Solar Empire. The inevitable expansions
followed the initial success, and now it’s time to keep the gravy
train moving, this time with a standalone expansion. Sins of a Solar
Empire: Rebellion adds rebellion to the sins that are in the solar
empire, introducing alternative factions, more ships, and additional
victory conditions. Is this $40 game a wise investment for newcomers
and veteran players alike?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
purports improved shadows and lighting, but I didn’t really notice
them, to be honest. The game also gets an hour of new music and some
additional voice work, which is nice. I don’t think you could
reasonably expect much more from an expansion, especially when you
consider that Sins of a Solar Empire looked good to begin with.

ET AL.

As the general awesomeness of Sins
of a Solar Empire has been well established, this review
will focus solely on the improvements contained herein, as I think we
can safely assume that most discerning strategy gamers already have
some version of this game permanently installed on their hard drive.
So, on to the new stuff. First, Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
introduces rebel factions for each of the game’s three races. The
rebels and the loyalists both have six unique research options
(clearly highlighted on the technology trees, to show that they are
shiny and new) that align with the backstory. I found most of the new
research options to be valuable, adding supplementary strategies to
each game. Also notable in Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion is new
victory conditions. Before, you had to align with all of the
remaining sides or opt for total conquest, but Rebellion gives you
more options for triumph. First, you can enable a single ship or home
planet that needs to be destroyed to eliminate a side; this makes
tedious clean-up a thing of the past, as you can quickly head towards
the capital when you have numerical superiority instead of having to
take out each and every enemy colony. There can also be a hostile,
neutral planet that can be captured and held for a win, or a tech
resides at the end of the civilian research tree that can grant
victory once you’ve researched fifty other technologies. This makes
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion tend to move away from a pure
military focus and reward other approaches to the game. The new game
mechanics have produced two new tutorials, and Sins of a Solar
Empire: Rebellion requires Steam but allows for achievements and
cloud-based saving as a consolation. Both the faction-specific
research and additional victory conditions are fine additions to the
base game.

Each of the game’s (now) six factions
gets three new units: a corvette, a capital ship, and a titan. The
cheap corvettes allow for “zerg
rush”-type tactics, something that’s different (but not
necessarily effective if prepared) for the normally slow-paced game.
Each race also gets a new capital ship and the experience cap has
been increased to level four, enabling more specialized operations
for your largest ships. Finally, each faction gets a huge,
slow-moving, outrageously expensive Titan-class ship that requires multiple research steps and lots of money to build; personally, I would rather spend the resources on mobile
battleships (plus, Titans are fairly weak until they get
experienced-based upgrades). The new ships are typical new features
for an expansion and, while they do offer new options for players,
they do not significantly alter the general strategic approach to the
game. Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion also offers balance changes
and the AI has been taught to play the game with the additional
features; I was not able to exploit a specific strategy to
consistently defeat the AI, so it remains as strong as before
(especially on higher difficulty settings). Of course, playing up to
nine other humans online is the ultimate in competition.

Sins of a Solar Empire is generally a
streamlined 4X game, so only having a few new ships and techs aligns
with the theme of the series, but you could always want more. More
important than more, though, would be the addition of some meaningful
innovations to make the game play differently, something that
Rebellion lacks and would justify a standalone price. This would have
been an excellent time to add a story-driven campaign to the game,
highlighting the new rebel factions and why they broke away. But,
alas, the developers opted to keep skirmish-only battles, which
further reduces the value of Rebellion. Those who, for some unknown
reason, have not played Sins before should purchase this particular
version, as it provides the most well-rounded gameplay of any in the
series. But for veterans of the Sins games, it’s difficult to
recommend spending $40 on what’s included.

IN CLOSING

Is Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion a
good game? On its own, yes: it continues the highly-rated
strategy gaming of the original. But as a $40 expansion? No, as it
fails to provide enough content to justify a standalone price for
owners of the previous games in the series (even with a $10 pre-order
discount for owners of Trinity or the Diplomacy expansion). The most
important addition, I think, is the new victory conditions: no longer
do you have to ally with everyone or obliterate all comers, but you
can focus on research or defeating a specific neutral planet. There
are also quicker options for victory, like destroying a capital or
important ship; this makes end-game clean-up a lot easier. The rebel
factions introduce some unique research options that inject new
strategic choices, and the new ships give additional options for
composing your fleet. The AI has been updated to handle the new
features, and overall game balance has been improved. Still, Sins of
a Solar Empire: Rebellion certainly doesn’t bring any significant,
innovative changes to the formula (like a campaign, for instance),
which is I why I feel those who have already played a game in the
series can avoid this pricey expansion. I would rather see the game
cost half what it is, considering the improvements offered.

The PC is a great resource for weird, strange games from all
corners of the globe. A perfect example is the series of niche
simulators created by Slovene developer ActaLogic and German
publisher UIG: Mining and Tunneling, Snowcats, Airports, Woodcutters, Tow
Trucks, and, of course, Bungee Jumping. Wanting to check out the appeal of
these…interesting…products, I decided to head out to the farm with Agricultural
Simulator - Historical Farming, a semi-sequel in the Agricultural Simulator
series that moves the “action” to the 1950’s through 1970’s in the northern
Alps and Tuscany. So, let’s spread our seeds and see what sprouts!

GRAPHICS AND SOUND

The presentation of Agricultural Simulator - Historical
Farming is a mixed bag overall. The animals and farm equipment both look nice,
as you would expect in a game that focuses on animals and farm equipment. The
tractors, plows, harvesters, and other assorted mechanical devices are detailed
replicas of their real-world counterparts. The animals also look good (though
only one model is used for each type, so all cows look identical), although the
animations are a bit repetitive. Your farm buildings aren’t intuitive (the barn
and cellar could have been interchangeable) and are recycled in each game
setting. Agricultural Simulator - Historical Farming also has significant
issues with clipping, with animals and equipment commonly passing through doors
and fencing, which obviously breaks immersion. I also experienced a rather
strange bug: climbing up a ladder threw me into the air on occasion. In addition, buying a second item from the machine shop crashed my game. The sound
design is very basic, with few effects that lack a sense of nature and campy
music as you till your fields. Overall, Agricultural Simulator - Historical
Farming has an acceptable set of graphics and sound effects that do not hinder
the gameplay.

ET AL.

Agricultural Simulator - Historical Farming simulates
historical farming in an agricultural motif. You are given a choice of two
farms (Tuscany or the Alps) that are basically the same (even with identical
buildings, although in a different layout) and no objectives. Intrinsically,
you are driven to make lots of money by growing food and animals, but I would
still like to see some optional goals to shoot for (like breeding pigs or
meeting a quota of corn) beyond a simple sandbox scenario. Conversely, the lack
of objectives means the player is free to do as he (or she, although in the
game your avatar is male) chooses. The game options allow you to adjust the
game speed (you can play in real time, if you are insane) and working day
length, and you can join other prospective farmers online in multiplayer, which
would be a potentially interesting feature if there was more variety in the
game mechanics.

Agricultural Simulator - Historical Farming tries its
hardest to make farming as unintuitive as possible, as the game features no
tutorial and the HTML manual is in German. Part of the difficulty for newcomers
can be attributed to the interface, which uses icons to display where nearby
things can be found or placed, but never explains what the icons actually mean.
Now, I can figure out what an egg stands for, but what about a triangle? Your
first exposure to the game is also spent learning the layout of the farms and
which doors open and which ones do not. There is no minimap and no building
labels, so finding your way around can be difficult. The game and manual really
fail to explain where things are supposed to go, and trail and error is spent
figuring out where to place empty milk jugs, breeding cattle, seeds, hay bails,
tractor attachments, and every other aspect of farm living. The game provides
several camera views, but I would like to use the mouse to change my
perspective in more than just the first person tractor view. The “tab” key
pulls up a menu for advanced actions (like lowering plows) and the “control”
key gives stats describing the current time and stockpile of goods and their
locations (if you can figure out which buildings are which, of course). A lot
more time could have been dedicated towards making Agricultural Simulator -
Historical Farming accessible.

There are two things to do in Agricultural Simulator -
Historical Farming: grow crops and raise animals. The former involves attaching
various tools to your tractor and then driving across your fields, which can be
any area you designate. While this may be realistic, doing the exact same thing,
only with different attachments, is not riveting: attach the plow, then attach
the cultivator, then attach the fertilizer, then attach the planter, then attach
the sprayer, then attach the harvester. The four tractors with twelve
attachments (which must be bought in town, a short tractor ride away) do give
you some toys to play with, but Agricultural Simulator - Historical Farming is
an exercise in tedious repetition. The animals require even less work, as they
are almost completely automated: just place a box near the chicken coop and an
empty milk jug in the barn and you’ll get eggs and milk, respectively. The only
time you’ll have to directly interact with the animals is leading them into the
barn for breeding (two at a time) or loading them on a carrier to bring them to
town for a handy profit. This is probably a good thing, since leading them
involves holding down the mouse button and walking very slowly towards your
destination: a very boring process. I guess that could be said for a majority
of Agricultural Simulator - Historical Farming, which has an uninformative
interface and lack of variety, two things to kill general interest in a
computer game.

IN CLOSING

Unintuitive controls, no tutorial, the lack of objectives,
and repetitive actions mean Agricultural Simulator - Historical Farming will
only possibly appeal to a very small niche. While I like the idea of the game,
the tedious duplication of collecting goods and disdain for in-game help ruins
any appeal the title might have offered. Farming involves doing the same thing
(driving over your fields) with different attachments (plow then cultivator
then seed spreader then pesticide then harvester), and that’s it. Animal
raising involves placing food in specific locations and bins in other locations
to collect milk or eggs, and that’s it. Animals can be bred by locking them in
the barn, or you can sell them in town, but the restriction and repetition of
the actions you are allowed to do makes for some dull gameplay. The game is
also very unfriendly to new players, just providing a bare manual (in German,
no less) and no in-game feedback to serve as any sort of direction. While the
lack of objectives makes Agricultural Simulator - Historical Farming more open
and freeform, it also makes you wonder what exactly to do next. I do like the
prospects of multiplayer, if it weren’t so easy to keep things running on your
own. Only the truly curious that don’t mind infinite reiteration will discover
enough value in Agricultural Simulator - Historical Farming.

Saturday, June 02, 2012

The Good: Online cooperative and
competitive play with multiple modes, nice variety of weapons and abilities,
frequent objective waypoints, zombie and military opponents to contend with

The Not So Good: Woeful AI, terrible
interface not adapted for the PC, really short linear and repetitive campaign lacks
manual saves, obstructive third person view, uninspired graphics

What say you? A cooperative zombie
survival game with significant faults: 3/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

I’m not that familiar with the Resident Evil series (being a
PC-only gamer), but apparently it involves Milla Jovovich being in skin-tight
leather and doing….something…it really doesn’t matter as long as Milla Jovovich
is in skin-tight leather. The survival horror game series has had a large number
of installments, appearing annually in one form or another since 1996. A fork
of the series has appeared in the form of Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City,
adapting the setting to a cooperative zombie adventure, in the vein of Left
4 Dead. Does Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City operate
successfully in a city of rabid mammals?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND

Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City features generally
bland, gloomy graphic design. It starts with the levels, which can contain some
memorable elements (city hall, a gas station, a hospital) but more often than
not are just a collection of hallways with doors that zombies burst out of. The
poorly detailed textures and sporadically empty rooms don’t help to increase
the immersion. The character models have poor animations and blocky weapon
design. Zombie deaths aren’t gory enough (most limbs are missing before you
fill them with hot lead) and fire is simply passable. The third person camera
view is also too close to your character, obscuring a significant portion of
the screen. Overall, I was generally unimpressed by the graphics featured in
the game. Sounds consist of understated zombie effects, typical battle chaos,
stereotypical and repetitive voice acting, and generic music. I certainly felt
Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City falls short of its $50 price tag in terms
of the presentation.

ET AL.

Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City has you patrolling the
streets of Raccoon City, eliminating those who oppose whatever evil corporation
you work for and shooting some zombies along the way. The campaign mode can be
played cooperatively by enabling the option when you start or resume (or
joining others that are in progress). Clocking in at twenty minutes a piece,
the campaign consists of seven missions; you can do the math and figure out how
long the campaign takes to complete (two to three hours). The linear level
design rarely features alternate paths and cuts down on replay value; the
scripted events also become tiresome the second time through. I also noticed a
distinct lack of raccoons. You can’t pause your game (ostensibly because of the
mandatory inclusion of cooperative play) or save your progress, a significant problem
in longer missions. Games for Windows LIVE also rears its ugly head yet again,
requiring too many steps to join a game, segregating people too much by
difficulty level or online game mode, lacking a server browser to see what
people are playing, and saying my install was corrupt if I chose to place the
game into a custom directory (it took me three install attempts to figure that
one out). All that said, the competitive modes Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon
City offers can be enjoyable, although all center around the same idea: you are
competing against another team of four for kills, items, or escape on a
helicopter (get to the choppa!!!), while having to contend with zombies that
attack both sides. This provided some light fun once I was able to find a game
to join buried within all the menu choices, although the sheer chaos of most games, coupled with really annoying melee attacks, removed some tactical .

The interface is downright terrible, constantly referring to
gamepad-specific controls, which makes it really hard to learn the obscure control
scheme Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City employs. There is a handy listing
of grenades, first aid spray, and antiviral spray icons in the bottom left:
useful, right? Except the display never says which keys to press to use any of
those items, just which direction to press on the gamepad you are not using.
The default controls just crowd everything on the left side of the keyboard,
using obscure choices like the left control key for using abilities and the “C”
key for quick time events (of course there are quick time events). Resident
Evil: Operation Raccoon City also disables the mouse wheel for selecting
different weapons, instead relying on the number keys for some reason. A lot of
time was spent changing around the controls to something more PC-friendly, and
even then limitations on what you could change greatly hindered the enjoyment
of controlling the game.

As you complete campaign or competitive matches, you gain
experience you can use to unlock weapons and abilities. There are six classes
in the game, each with three active (one of which you can use per game) and two
passive (both of which can be used if unlocked) abilities: assault gets
incendiary rounds and more damage, the surveillance soldier can detect nearby
enemies, recon gets a motion detector, the medic class can reheal allies, the field
scientist can attract zombies and view infected, and the demolition man can
place trip mines and wear blast armor. The experience cost for unlocking new
abilities is not very high: after a handful of online matches or campaign
missions, you can have one active ability unlocked in each class. You can
upgrade abilities with more experience as well, sticking with the class you
like the most. Weapon upgrades, however, are much more expensive, divided into several
groups: assault rifles (burst, militia, heavy, suppressed), submachine guns
(tactical, mini, suppressed), machine guns (light, heavy), shotgun (pump
action, assault, riot), and sniper rifles (precision, semi automatic). The
differences between weapons of the same type isn’t dramatic, but at least the
guns are not class specific, which is nice. In levels where you fight a lot of
military, numerous weapons can be picked up from fallen enemies, but
zombie-heavy levels usually result in running out of ammo quickly, as it takes
an inordinate amount of bullets to bring down even the most basic zombie.
Grenades are usually better options for taking out large groups, as you must be
conservative with your ammo.

Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City wants you to use cover
(based on the number of armed and zombie enemies you’ll encounter), and the
cover system to be easy to use: just approach any flat object and you’ll
immediately duck behind it without having to press any additional buttons. Of
course, this means you might end up behind cover without actually wanting to
be, but that problem usually didn’t result in immediate death from my
experience. Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City features both zombies and military
opposition, which might have been an interesting mix if Resident Evil:
Operation Raccoon City didn’t have such terrible AI. The computer opposition is
so clearly dumb from the outset, and the only challenge is the sheer number of
enemies and the limited amount of ammunition the game provides. The AI fails to
use cover effectively (typically leaving a significant portion of their body in
the open), routinely turns it back to you, and ignores your presence too often.
While these behaviors are acceptable for a zombie, they are not for a
supposedly highly-trained military operative. Teammates aren’t any help either,
getting shot, surrounded, or going off on their own, making the single player
campaign something to avoid. For difficulty, the game simply throws a lot of
enemies at you, instead of relying on “advanced” maneuvers like flanking or returning
fire.

IN CLOSING

Left
4 Dead this is not. Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City fails in
two main areas: AI and the interface. When the zombie AI is more convincing
than the enemy soldier AI, whatever small amount of immersion you had is
immediately lost. Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City features some of the
dumbest enemies I’ve encountered in quite a while; while this can be expected
for mindless zombies, the intelligence of the enemy soldiers never even
approaches the bar set by, say, Half-Life (which came out in 1998). The AI shortcomings
effectively ruin the campaign, coupled with the linear level design and
scripted enemy encounters that reduce replay value. On top of that, the campaign is outrageously short (two to
three hours) for a $50 game. I like the idea of having to fight both hordes of zombies and armed enemy soldiers, but the executing is definitely lacking. Competitive online play is more enjoyable
than the cooperative campaign mode, where you not only have to contend with
zombies but with enemy human players as well, but these diversions aren’t
enough to carry a full-priced title. The problems continue with the control
scheme: a
restrictive third person view is bad enough, but coupling it with an uninformative,
console-driven interface is double trouble. I simply could not keep the
controls straight, as the on-screen interface fails to tell you which unintuitive
keys are used for individual items (but does note the appropriate directions to
press on a gamepad). The graphics are underwhelming at best, however,
and signify development geared towards inferior hardware. Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City isn’t all bad news, as the game features a large range of weapons and abilities that are unlocked fairly quickly with experience, but this is a lone highlight in a game dominated by mediocrity. Despite
the inherent appeal of a known license, I would much rather fire up Left
4 Dead 2 again than play a console port with bad AI, short and linear campaign, and an unmodified
interface. Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City feels more like a $20
experiment than a $50 product.